UKIPpers

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:54 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Even worse. They have taken on Tom 'Batshit' Bursnall from the Tories.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/04/t ... have-vote/
http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... the-world/

Quote:

The former chair of Conservative Future has suggested that the unemployed should not be allowed to vote. Tom Bursnall, who recently defected from the Tories to UKIP on Windsor and Maidenhead Council, specifically targeted the unemployed people on his Pro Capitalist blog, asking:

“Should people on benefits be allowed to vote?”

And it gets worse — when “Batsh*t Bursnall” goes on to suggest that rich people should receive more votes than the poor:

“It would be terribly ‘unfair’ of you to give equal representation rights to the chap who contributes 50 times more than the next person. In the same way as if you own 60% of shares of a company, you’ll get 60% of the voting rights at the Annual General Meeting.”

So Bursnall believes that the unemployed shouldn't get to vote (they have no stake in the country, no 'shares') but rich people should multiple votes.

This is what UKIP is now embracing. Charlatans and amateurs.

Well, to be fair, he was in the Tories for long enough. Not really a killer argument for them being worse than the Tories.

Paul · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:54 pm

D-Day for Sarkozy: French president facing defeat as first round exit polls predict Hollande will win election

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1sq8y5Ykz

Quote:

I can predict with confidence that UKIP will have NO MPs in the House of Commons after the next election. Anybody who thinks otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land. If there is, I promise to pay Help for Heroes £100.00.

- Anne, West Midlands EU, 22/4/2012 14:20
Click to rate Rating 24

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:31 pm

Don't know how I missed this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... allowances

Ukip MEPs misused EU allowances to fund party's UK work

Quote:

MEPs from the United Kingdom Independence party, whose organisation has railed against the European Union's "gravy train", have been found to have misused taxpayer-funded allowances following a crackdown by Europe's anti-fraud watchdog.

Two of the party's senior members have repaid more than £37,000 meant for office staff after diverting it to party workers based in the UK. One MEP told the Guardian that he was asked to divert the funds by a senior adviser to the party.

The findings follow an inquiry by Olaf, the EU's investigative unit, and will raise further questions about the way that Ukip has sought to profit from the European parliament's generous expenses and staffing regime

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:54 am

You couldn't make it up.

Narglefargle is now proudly proclaiming the support of Peter Stringfellow. Yes, the sun-bed addicted louche roué who made his money paying women to put their fan-fans on show to pissed up businessmen and tourists is now supporting UKIP.

Well done, Nargle. Well done, you.

turborip · **Joined:** Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:28 pm **Posts:** 16

http://www.winkball.com/entries/QSjf5WWSDY_f/emmett-jenner

Abernathy · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:22 pm

Hmmm. So Emmett wants a referendum on EU membership because "we were never asked if we wanted to be in the EU".

The 1975 question asked :

"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"

and delivered a YES vote from more than 67% of the UK electorate. The European Union Is the European Community, which encompassed the "common market", as the EU was termed in its early days (it was formerly the European Iron and Steel Trades Confederation - why aren't Emmett and his pals insisting on a return to that?).

Other than the fact that it's totally un-necessary and my view that referenda in a representative parliamentary democracy should be instigated only in exceptional circumstances affecting constitutional matters, I have no problem with the notion of a further referendum on UK EU membership. I think there would be another YES vote. It might even shut up Emmett and his fellow wingnuts, but I'll not be holding my breath.

But the biggest reason why the call for a referendum on British EC membership is exotic bollocks is the pretence on UKIP's part that a referendum is all they really want - a chance to be asked. The notion that they will simply accept the verdict and go away is arrant nonsense, and they should stop pretending that that is honestly all they want. Everybody knows that their true agenda is driven by naked xenophobia.

They should stop the dissembling and merge with the British Freedom Party.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:07 am

That's the Common Market. Though the political union has always been clear, the EU is fairly different.

I don't like referenda at all, but it's not ridiculous to argue for one over something constitutional.

Abernathy · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:21 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

That's the Common Market. Though the political union has always been clear, the EU is fairly different.

I don't like referenda at all, but it's not ridiculous to argue for one over something constitutional.

Sorry, Tubs, not understanding your point at all. Try again?

Winegums · **Joined:** Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:04 pm **Posts:** 706

Abernathy wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

That's the Common Market. Though the political union has always been clear, the EU is fairly different.

I don't like referenda at all, but it's not ridiculous to argue for one over something constitutional.

Sorry, Tubs, not understanding your point at all. Try again?

I believe he's saying the 1975 question was in reference to the Common Market, not the European Union.

Abernathy · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:58 am

My point was that the 1975 question asked about UK membership of the European Community (Common Market). Common Market was simply a popularly used term of reference for the EC, not something different altogther, as the UKIP wingnuts like to insist. And the YES vote was 67%.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:32 pm

Treaty of Rome, 1950.

That's what we signed up to which laid out the entirety of the EU as it is today. We had a referendum of signing it, we voted to do so and we signed it.

oboogie · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:36 pm

Exactly Bluebell.

The claim that it was just intended to be a trading block demonstrates ignorance of historical fact.

In 1931 two books entitled "The United States of Europe" were published by French politician Édouard Herriot and by British civil servant Arthur Salter. More famously the term "United States of Europe" was used by Winston Churchill in a speech delivered on 9 September 1946 at the University of Zürich, Switzerland. He concluded that: “We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living".

The voters of 1973 and 1975 knew, or should have known, this was the intention and they went for it.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:55 pm

oboogie wrote:

The claim that it was just intended to be a trading block demonstrates a wilful misrepresentation of historical fact.

I

FTFY

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:20 pm

oboogie wrote:

Exactly Bluebell.

The claim that it was just intended to be a trading block demonstrates ignorance of historical fact.

In 1931 two books entitled "The United States of Europe" were published by French politician Édouard Herriot and by British civil servant Arthur Salter. More famously the term "United States of Europe" was used by Winston Churchill in a speech delivered on 9 September 1946 at the University of Zürich, Switzerland. He concluded that: “We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living".

The voters of 1973 and 1975 knew, or should have known, this was the intention and they went for it.

I'm aware of all that, and I had a letter published in the Guardian on that subject.

Quote:

During the referendum debate (PM rocked by record rebellion as Europe splits Tories again, 25 October), it was asserted by speaker after speaker that the "sovereignty" implications of joining the EU were from the start hidden from the public.

This would have taken some doing, given the opposition to joining of the Labour frontbench and articulate Tory backbenchers like Enoch Powell. In fact, the matter was dealt with in the white paper and other publications issued by the Conservative party – one of them entitled Sovereignty in the Common Market. Elsewhere, Alec Douglas-Home, holding the less than obscure position of foreign secretary, suggested that "anyone who had the stamina … to read a year of speeches … by ministers … would find that they constantly return" to the political case for entry; in the pamphlet Our European Destiny, Douglas-Home agreed with Powell that "our application is a step of the utmost political significance".

Such "deception" compares rather well with the way in which the Tory party lied about their NHS plans at the last election.

Tubby Isaacs

Mailwatch

But the fact is all that was also true in 1975, and a referendum was held. What's so different about now? If the 1975 poll is some irrelevance that shouldn't have happened, why do pro-EU refer to it as significant? (As Abernathy did up there). You can't draw legitimacy for the EU from the result of that referendum and deny another one. Even if the direction of travel towards political union was clear from the start, I don't think it's silly to hold one now to see if people approve of the destination now we're here.

I've never liked referenda because I prefer parliamentary democracy. However, UK wide referenda have been held, on the EEC in 1975 and on AV in 2011. And referenda have also been held in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I don't think I can argue any more that referenda aren't part of the way we do things.

Abernathy · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:51 pm

I suppose my main objection is that the disgruntlement of a few single-issue obsessed xenophobes and nutters who have always loathed the concept of European Union in any event is really no good reason to stage a referendum. I'm not certain what the motive force was for holding one in 1975, but I'd like to think it was a bit more substantial than that.

UKIPpers

Who is online